Re: [PATCH] doc/gitattributes: mention non-recursive behavior

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Mar 23, 2018, 09:12 UTC
Message-ID: <20180323091221.GB24416@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8DCkh=kn1bmCQf4idPggsh5cEY936gfR-5qaQKRsmLBzA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 05:16:16PM +0100, Duy Nguyen wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> >> After 8b1bd02415 (Make !pattern in .gitattributes non-fatal -
> >> 2013-03-01) maybe we could use the verb "ignored" too instead of
> >> "forbidden"
> >
> > Makes sense. The original is already in 'next', so do you want to send
> > an incremental patch?
> 
> It's up to you. After all it's you who's doing all the work :)

I was trying to trick you into doing it. ;)

As I tried to write up the commit message, though, I had second thoughts. It's true that they are ignored in the current code. But I do not think they are something we want to encourage, and certainly we do not want to promise that the "ignored" behavior will last forever.

So I think it is actually best to declare them forbidden, and we just happen to treat it as a non-fatal error in the current code.

Show 9 quoted lines

> > One other maybe-difference I came across coincidentally today: you have
> > to quote the pattern in .gitattributes if it contains spaces, but not in
> > .gitignore. But that's more an artifact of the rest of the file syntax
> > than the pattern syntax (.gitignore has no other fields to confuse it
> > with).
> 
> Yeah I forgot about that (and I was the one who started it). The
> document was updated in 860a74d9d9 (attr: support quoting pathname
> patterns in C style - 2017-01-27) though.

OK. I was considering adding a special note to the list of differences, but I think the existing text is probably fine.

-Peff